2,022 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Jun 25, 2020 22:59:15 GMT
When did any criticism of Israel start equalling "anti semetism" in this country? I'm mystified
|
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Jun 25, 2020 23:11:59 GMT
When did any criticism of Israel start equalling "anti semetism" in this country? I'm mystified
It didn't. This isn't precisely about "criticism of Israel", it's about pinning the blame for something on Israel - the Jewish state - when Israel is not responsible for it, which has historically been an anti-Semitic dog-whistle. And specifically in this case it's about linking violence against a black person to the Jewish state.
|
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Jun 25, 2020 23:15:10 GMT
When did any criticism of Israel start equalling "anti semetism" in this country? I'm mystified Have you read anything in this thread? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 7:58:37 GMT
However I do buy Rebecca’s defence - that she was just re-tweeting an article featuring her constituent condemning the government. Many politicians have done a hell of a lot worse without a blink of an eye and I’m not convinced there was any malicious intent behind it. Really? Given how much invective has been (justifiably) aimed at the Labour party over the last few years for the previous leader's unmitigated failure to deal with the issue of anti-Semitism, "she was just re-tweeting an article featuring her constituent condemning the government" doesn't cut it. Ms. Long-Bailey should have read the article first, should have noticed the VERY obvious dog-whistle (which does Ms. Peake absolutely no credit either, by the way), and should have realised that re-tweeting (and therefore endorsing) an interview with a prominent Labour supporter which contains a thuddingly obvious piece of anti-Semitism would inevitably reopen a very ugly conversation. That she DIDN'T, I'm afraid, tells us a great deal about her intelligence, and that's putting it very kindly. There's no excuse. And THEN, instead of acknowledging the mistake, deleting the tweet, firmly distancing herself from the offensive content in the article, and offering an unreserved apology, Ms. Long-Bailey doubled down and tried to justify herself. At that point, she had to go - and since this is an issue that has already done the party enormous damage, she had to go immediately. Starmer didn't have any choice. PR stunt? Not in the way you suggest. I would not be at all surprised if Starmer gave her the job anticipating that before too long he'd have to fire her - but as I said somewhere else, in order to be seen to be trying to build bridges, he had to offer her a prominent role. This was an easily-avoidable screwup, and she didn't avoid it. It's entirely her own fault. You assume she is consciously promoting falsehoods but the truth still remains the article she shared clearly states that Maxine’s claims were false and that they were incorrect. This isn’t hidden away at the bottom of the article, but directly next to Maxine’s quote. I’m by no means a fan of RLB and have zero idea how she came second in the labour leadership, and as I said in my first post, she should have known better. But in context, Maxine’s one comment was directly counteracted by the journalist in the article and Maxine makes a lot of other comments worth reading. It isn’t an article going off on a tirade against Israel, but she is hyper critical of the UK government and as a member of the opposition, I can believe Rebecca wanting to get that criticism out there. Was she a fool? Should she have known better? Of course. Did Kier have any choice? Of course not. But you can’t deny it’s been turned into a PR win for him - and I wouldn’t be surprised if he promotes her again by the time an election comes around. But do I think Maxine was trying to be antisemitic? No I don’t - I think she actually believed what she was saying: I find it hard to believe that someone in the public eye would deliberately blame Israel in an interview for the death of a man in another country without at least believing it was factual: common sense tells you it would create a storm if it wasn’t (which it has). Call me old fashion, naive or innocent, but people are people and not hateful, prejudice or constantly acting with ulterior motives. We have all said things we believed were true, all been in the wrong, all acted foolishly and all been told we should have known better. This I think is one of those occasions. Why people use Twitter is beyond me - if you’re in the public eye someone is watching your every move just waiting for you to do something they can use against you... and they always get it in the end. |
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jun 26, 2020 8:24:15 GMT
When did any criticism of Israel start equalling "anti semetism" in this country? I'm mystified Have you read anything in this thread? I read the thread also and am asking the same question? Is Maxine Peake getting kicked out of the party now for anti-semetism? |
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Jun 26, 2020 9:38:52 GMT
Call me old fashion, naive or innocent, but people are people and not hateful, prejudice or constantly acting with ulterior motives. So in other words, it's OK if someone regurgitates a known anti-Semitic trope if they feign ignorance and claim their intentions were pure? |
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jun 26, 2020 9:49:31 GMT
Call me old fashion, naive or innocent, but people are people and not hateful, prejudice or constantly acting with ulterior motives. So in other words, it's OK if someone regurgitates a known anti-Semitic trope if they feign ignorance and claim their intentions were pure? It's known anti-Semitism? I don't think that was Maxine Peake's intention at all. I'll be honest, I had to read the article twice to find the anti-Semitic claims. My first thought reading the article was bloody Maxine Peake you centrist. |
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Jun 26, 2020 10:07:07 GMT
So in other words, it's OK if someone regurgitates a known anti-Semitic trope if they feign ignorance and claim their intentions were pure? It's known anti-Semitism? I don't think that was Maxine Peake's intention at all. I'll be honest, I had to read the article twice to find the anti-Semitic claims. My first thought reading the article was bloody Maxine Peake you centrist. Yes, it's a known anti-Semitic trope. I don't think it was her intention either, but the conversation surrounding anti-Semitism within the Labour party over the past few years has been so deafening and has done the party so much damage that someone with links to the party, even if they aren't an MP - Peake has appeared in party political broadcasts - needs to be VERY careful not to dig a pit for themselves. As I suggested somewhere else, at this point ignorance is not a valid defence. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 10:25:47 GMT
Call me old fashion, naive or innocent, but people are people and not hateful, prejudice or constantly acting with ulterior motives. So in other words, it's OK if someone regurgitates a known anti-Semitic trope if they feign ignorance and claim their intentions were pure? Hasn’t that been the generally accepted rule for anything? Say something you think is true, find out it’s not, apologise and move on? Look at all the people who are claiming ‘all lives matter’ - is it a demonstration of racism or simply ignorance as to what BLM movement is? People are inherently good but we all make mistakes. It’s how we deal with our mistakes and how we explain our choices that matter. Education is key. Clearly you chose to believe both Maxine and Rebecca acted maliciously and with intent. I personally disagree and think it was simply a case of believing erroneous facts and re-tweeting without thinking. We’ve had an apology and an explanation and I accept them - but it’s okay if you don’t. |
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Jun 26, 2020 10:28:38 GMT
Clearly you chose to believe both Maxine and Rebecca acted maliciously and with intent. Clearly you need to read more carefully. That's not anything close to what I said. Please try to engage with the argument I actually made instead of deliberately misrepresenting it. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 10:29:24 GMT
So in other words, it's OK if someone regurgitates a known anti-Semitic trope if they feign ignorance and claim their intentions were pure? It's known anti-Semitism? I don't think that was Maxine Peake's intention at all. I'll be honest, I had to read the article twice to find the anti-Semitic claims. My first thought reading the article was bloody Maxine Peake you centrist. To be honest I would argue a large portion of the UK are centrists. Moving towards the centre is how Tony Blair continuously won and David Cameron did the same to make the conservatives more palatable. When both main parties moved back to the far left/far right that’s when we started having problems. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 10:37:20 GMT
Clearly you chose to believe both Maxine and Rebecca acted maliciously and with intent. Clearly you need to read more carefully. That's not anything close to what I said. Please try to engage with the argument I actually made instead of deliberately misrepresenting it. Thank you. Respectfully you opt to pick and chose certain parts of my posts in order to push your own agenda. You claim it doesn’t matter whether Maxine or Rebecca acted maliciously or not - a very dangerous view point as intent is everything. If people aren’t allowed to make mistakes and are condemned for doing things they did not know were mistakes, it’s a very scary world. |
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Jun 26, 2020 10:38:25 GMT
Have you read anything in this thread? I read the thread also and am asking the same question? Is Maxine Peake getting kicked out of the party now for anti-semetism? Well, there's an abundance of information on this thread that clearly, and in detail, explains this particular situation and the context surrounding it which makes this case different from others. If you can't see it, you either don't want to or maybe haven't read as thoroughly as is needed. |
|
5,840 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jun 26, 2020 10:42:45 GMT
RLB has a track record of 'not seeing' blatant anti-Semitism when it is right in front of her.
That is either ignorance or a deliberate choice
Either is wrong in a politician
|
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Jun 26, 2020 10:47:43 GMT
Clearly you need to read more carefully. That's not anything close to what I said. Please try to engage with the argument I actually made instead of deliberately misrepresenting it. Thank you. Respectfully you opt to pick and chose certain parts of my posts in order to push your own agenda. You claim it doesn’t matter whether Maxine or Rebecca acted maliciously or not - a very dangerous view point as intent is everything. If people aren’t allowed to make mistakes and are condemned for doing things they did not know were mistakes, it’s a very scary world. The thing is, RLB read the article, right? She saw that line and either agreed with it or thought it so insignificant that she didn't need to caveat her tweet when posting that Maxine Peake was a “diamond”. Whatever she felt, that was a mistake, given her history and the recent history of the party. She should have known better. She was asked to remove the tweet and apologise. She chose not to remove the tweet, and no apology featured in her follow up tweet, some half-arsed “it wasn’t intended to be an endorsement of all aspects of the article”. That's it. And not good enough. At this point, her intent is clear. Starmer has issued a zero-tolerance policy on anti-semitism. With, as I say, RLB's history and the party history, to not even acknowledge or apologise when she was given the chance? She made her bed. Starmer did what he had to do. What else was he supposed to do? We may not be used to it currently - but he showed real leadership. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 26, 2020 10:58:34 GMT
Really? Given how much invective has been (justifiably) aimed at the Labour party over the last few years for the previous leader's unmitigated failure to deal with the issue of anti-Semitism, "she was just re-tweeting an article featuring her constituent condemning the government" doesn't cut it. Ms. Long-Bailey should have read the article first, should have noticed the VERY obvious dog-whistle (which does Ms. Peake absolutely no credit either, by the way), and should have realised that re-tweeting (and therefore endorsing) an interview with a prominent Labour supporter which contains a thuddingly obvious piece of anti-Semitism would inevitably reopen a very ugly conversation. That she DIDN'T, I'm afraid, tells us a great deal about her intelligence, and that's putting it very kindly. There's no excuse. And THEN, instead of acknowledging the mistake, deleting the tweet, firmly distancing herself from the offensive content in the article, and offering an unreserved apology, Ms. Long-Bailey doubled down and tried to justify herself. At that point, she had to go - and since this is an issue that has already done the party enormous damage, she had to go immediately. Starmer didn't have any choice. PR stunt? Not in the way you suggest. I would not be at all surprised if Starmer gave her the job anticipating that before too long he'd have to fire her - but as I said somewhere else, in order to be seen to be trying to build bridges, he had to offer her a prominent role. This was an easily-avoidable screwup, and she didn't avoid it. It's entirely her own fault. You assume she is consciously promoting falsehoods but the truth still remains the article she shared clearly states that Maxine’s claims were false and that they were incorrect. This isn’t hidden away at the bottom of the article, but directly next to Maxine’s quote. I’m by no means a fan of RLB and have zero idea how she came second in the labour leadership, and as I said in my first post, she should have known better. But in context, Maxine’s one comment was directly counteracted by the journalist in the article and Maxine makes a lot of other comments worth reading. It isn’t an article going off on a tirade against Israel, but she is hyper critical of the UK government and as a member of the opposition, I can believe Rebecca wanting to get that criticism out there. Just to note, the article itself was updated after publication - when RLB shared it, it didn't include the clarification that the claims were incorrect. It actually included a quote from the Amnesty USA blogpost to support the comment. At the time it was initially published, it was uncritically supporting the conspiracy theory, and was only changed after RLB amplified it because of the criticism. Alas, this sort of sneaky post-publication correction is all too common in the news media - there'll be a timestamp noting that the article was updated somewhere on the page, but not telling you exactly what was changed is all too common. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 11:13:09 GMT
Respectfully you opt to pick and chose certain parts of my posts in order to push your own agenda. You claim it doesn’t matter whether Maxine or Rebecca acted maliciously or not - a very dangerous view point as intent is everything. If people aren’t allowed to make mistakes and are condemned for doing things they did not know were mistakes, it’s a very scary world. The thing is, RLB read the article, right? She saw that line and either agreed with it or thought it so insignificant that she didn't need to caveat her tweet when posting that Maxine Peake was a “diamond”. Whatever she felt, that was a mistake, given her history and the recent history of the party. She should have known better. She was asked to remove the tweet and apologise. She chose not to remove the tweet, and no apology featured in her follow up tweet, some half-arsed “it wasn’t intended to be an endorsement of all aspects of the article”. That's it. And not good enough. At this point, her intent is clear. Starmer has issued a zero-tolerance policy on anti-semitism. With, as I say, RLB's history and the party history, to not even acknowledge or apologise when she was given the chance? She made her bed. Starmer did what he had to do. What else was he supposed to do? We may not be used to it currently - but he showed real leadership. I never said I excuse her, but that I accepted her explanation. The article in question is so much more than that one comment within it - a comment the journalist confirms in the very next sentence is incorrect. I don’t disagree with anything that has happened as a result of all this and as I said, I think Starmer has turned this into an absolute win for himself politically - got rid of a Corbynist, his biggest competition to his leadership and shown the world he meant business when it comes to anti-Seminism. I don’t fault him at all. All I said in my original post is that I believe Rebecca’s explanation for re-tweeting the article. I stand by that and have since said that I don’t believe Maxine or Rebecca acted with any sort of malice and it was simply a case of using an incorrect fact - a fact confirmed as incorrect by the journalist in very next sentence at the point of publication. Of course it wasn’t acceptable to some users here that I accept Rebecca’s explanation which is a shame, because I’m actually not a fan of her at all. |
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Jun 26, 2020 11:13:28 GMT
Respectfully you opt to pick and chose certain parts of my posts in order to push your own agenda. No, I quote selectively to save space. Moving on... You claim it doesn’t matter whether Maxine or Rebecca acted maliciously or not - a very dangerous view point as intent is everything. If people aren’t allowed to make mistakes and are condemned for doing things they did not know were mistakes, it’s a very scary world. That's not quite what I said either. The point - and it really isn't difficult unless you're choosing not to understand it - is that the conversation surrounding anti-Semitism within and around the Labour Party has been so ugly and so damaging that anybody with links to the party needs to be very careful indeed when they talk about anything referencing Israel or Judaism or Jewish people. On THIS subject, more than just about any other, anybody connected to the Labour Party needs to be absolutely sure of what they're saying before they say it. If you're Maxine Peake, that means not casually lobbing a known anti-Semitic trope into a conversation with an interviewer without fact-checking the assertion you're making first - and yes, linking violence against black people to Israel is a known anti-Semitic trope. If you're Rebecca Long-Bailey, that means not retweeting (and therefore holding up for approval) an interview in which a famous constituent with strong links to the Labour Party makes an unfounded assertion that can justifiably be construed as anti-Semitic. It also means that when you're facing criticism for retweeting such an article, you delete the tweet, distance yourself from the problematic comments in the piece, and immediately offer an unreserved apology instead of doubling down and trying to justify yourself. This is an area where everybody connected to the Labour Party needs to be hyper-vigilant. I don't think either Ms. Peake or Ms. Long-Bailey consciously acted maliciously. I do believe Ms. Peake's willingness to parrot that particular line without fact-checking it reveals something about her unconscious prejudices, and for Ms. Long-Bailey to retweet it and then not immediately offer a grovelling apology when challenged about it, in the context of the party's very, very ugly ongoing conversation about anti-Semitism, is simply breathtakingly, jaw-droppingly, astonishingly STUPID. This isn't "a mistake". This is an issue that has done the party a huge amount of damage, and the party's MPs - especially the ones sitting in the shadow cabinet - have a responsibility to make sure it doesn't do any more. And if you seriously think it's "scary" that MPs are - oops - not allowed to RETWEET SOMETHING RACIST without facing consequences for it, it's probably time to take a long, hard look at your own prejudices. |
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jun 26, 2020 11:25:48 GMT
I read the thread also and am asking the same question? Is Maxine Peake getting kicked out of the party now for anti-semetism? Well, there's an abundance of information on this thread that clearly, and in detail, explains this particular situation and the context surrounding it which makes this case different from others. If you can't see it, you either don't want to or maybe haven't read as thoroughly as is needed. I want the information, I want more than just here. Following up SF's piece elsewhere. Give me the pertinent bits. I'm not there yet. |
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jun 26, 2020 11:32:42 GMT
It's known anti-Semitism? I don't think that was Maxine Peake's intention at all. I'll be honest, I had to read the article twice to find the anti-Semitic claims. My first thought reading the article was bloody Maxine Peake you centrist. To be honest I would argue a large portion of the UK are centrists. Moving towards the centre is how Tony Blair continuously won and David Cameron did the same to make the conservatives more palatable. When both main parties moved back to the far left/far right that’s when we started having problems. David Cameron wasn't a centrist? What policy did I miss that made him so? Being on the left of Boris Johnson doesn't make you a centrist |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 11:37:35 GMT
]And if you seriously think it's "scary" that MPs are - oops - not allowed to SAY SOMETHING RACIST without facing consequences for it, it's probably time to take a long, hard look at your own prejudices. I never said there was no consequences. I never once said Starmer did anything wrong in how he handed this. All I ever did was say that I accept Rebecca’s explanation, a comment you took issue with. What is very scary is how you reject my acceptance of her explanation and have turned it around into suggesting I need to look at my own prejudices, suggesting publicly I am supporting the idea MPs are allowed to be racist. You completely took issue with the fact I accept Rebecca’s explanation. I never defended her, said she was in the right or claimed that this is all a mountain out of a mole hill. But you have jumped on it, ran with it and completely used it to push your own agenda. Where does the conversation end? Am I supposed to tell you she is evil? That she should be cancelled? Am I supposed to withdraw acceptance of her explanation to appease you? Because I won’t. I’ve read the article, read her explanation and thought it a case of ‘fair enough’. She will learn from this and hopefully learn nothing good ever comes from using Twitter (something I do think is evil and needs cancelling). |
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Jun 26, 2020 11:41:35 GMT
Because I won’t. I’ve read the article, read her explanation and thought it a case of ‘fair enough’. Precisely. And that, I'm afraid, is the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2020 11:42:39 GMT
To be honest I would argue a large portion of the UK are centrists. Moving towards the centre is how Tony Blair continuously won and David Cameron did the same to make the conservatives more palatable. When both main parties moved back to the far left/far right that’s when we started having problems. David Cameron wasn't a centrist? What policy did I miss that made him so? Being on the left of Boris Johnson doesn't make you a centrist Cameron absolutely moved the conservatives towards the centre. I’m not saying he or Blair moved directly into the middle, but they both moved towards it in order to steal votes from the other party - but they were both party men and not centrists themselves. They just worked out a way of winning votes and that was to condense their views so that more people could agree with them and take the win. Although retrospectively it feels redundant to ever say Cameron had a real win, the mess he created. |
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Jun 26, 2020 11:50:00 GMT
Well, there's an abundance of information on this thread that clearly, and in detail, explains this particular situation and the context surrounding it which makes this case different from others. If you can't see it, you either don't want to or maybe haven't read as thoroughly as is needed. I want the information, I want more than just here. Following up SF's piece elsewhere. Give me the pertinent bits. I'm not there yet. That is appreciated, I assure you. The thing is, the pertinent bits aren't necessarily little nuggets of information, easily digested. This is a very nuanced situation that does require a degree of further reading and understanding. On the previous page, I posted a thread in full about how this situation may not seem anti-Semitic on the face of it, but a deeper context is needed if you wish to understand why it is. Here's the thread on twitter: The original Independent interview included a link to an “Amnesty International report” about Israeli Police officers teaching US polices officers techniques that were used in the murder of George Floyd. That reference has since been removed from the Independent interview. Amnesty made a statement here: www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/06/amnesty-international-we-never-reported-neck-kneeling-taught-israelis-usThis thread explains how the “report” that the Independent originally linked to should not be used as some sort of official source: This is a thread (if a little flippant) on examples of how wording and phrasing is used that makes some criticisms *not* anti-Semitic and some criticisms anti-Semitic: This is an article I’ve seen today regarding the non-apology and sacking of RLB. Obviously this is not set in stone that this report is the gospel on what happened, but it's further reading none-the-less: www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/keir-starmer-rebecca-long-bailey_uk_5ef50f91c5b6acab283efcb2?5hx&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly90LmNvL0xWVzdaT2VFZGo_YW1wPTE&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAADxKQTZQUY1aUIzTjiEWDLr-FxhgoEm4Y1W0IFlZVLeioWhAmmlZ9u0IP1mciLa__ncXL8UItJMwSUrn_j-ph-F_yulWDOh6Xbt45Z5xHPBceuehGlqUwnAGUiTEuHmiOOPe3Mzu5fsmNaKC8VJ319nQ6cCClkuTr3OEVtFCN0Rn |
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jun 26, 2020 11:50:10 GMT
David Cameron wasn't a centrist? What policy did I miss that made him so? Being on the left of Boris Johnson doesn't make you a centrist Cameron absolutely moved the conservatives towards the centre. I’m not saying he or Blair moved directly into the middle, but they both moved towards it in order to steal votes from the other party - but they were both party men and not centrists themselves. They just worked out a way of winning votes and that was to condense their views so that more people could agree with them and take the win. Although retrospectively it feels redundant to ever say Cameron had a real win, the mess he created. Claiming the centre ground and having centrist policies are different things though. Different times I know but Cameron did things Thatcher would only dream of doing. Not sure any policy decisions bear out a centrist politician. |
|
